3 ms·

I am not being uncharitable. I am asking whether the poster has analyzed the number of studies in the USA, structured as carefully as this one, and found that

I am not being uncharitable. I am asking whether the poster has analyzed the number of studies in the USA, structured as carefully as this one, and found that they are in fact labelled racist more than 50% of the time. And if so, by whom. I don't think the poster needs charity. Clarity is more like it.

icegreentea2 9y ago
I think what you're asking for is unreasonable. Labelled racist by who? How do you count 50%? Does it matter if only one fringe group labels it racist? Or does it have to be called racist by a group with political capital > X. It also leaves any potential of discussing "chilling effect" like things. You're measurement does nothing to gauge the overall zeitgeist of the time, which would clearly influence the outlook of any researcher who didn't have balls of steel and bulletproof funding. I agree the author needs more clarity. And the clear thing to say is that "one could easily imagine this type of study in the United States causing problems for the author due to possible accusations of racism".
- frabbit 9y ago
  I agree with your "labelled racist by who, how do you count, etc" questions. But that just throws the meaninglessness of the original statement into starker relief: it's simply an empty expression of unsupported complaint. Your finishing formulation, is unfortunately simply more prolix. I do not see those sorts of comments as up to the usual standards of HackerNews. Perhaps to be expected on an article like this, but still they should be discouraged.
coldtea 9y ago
>I am not being uncharitable. I am asking whether the poster has analyzed the number of studies in the USA, structured as carefully as this one, and found that they are in fact labelled racist more than 50% of the time. And if so, by whom. What you're asking is not just uncharitable, it doesn't even make sense (even if it was possible). It's also irrelevant to what the parent said, which is not a quantified claim that such studies are "labelled racist more than 50% of the time", but a casual "usually labelled racist". In casual conversation "usually" doesn't mean some hard 50% + c, any more so than "often" and "a lot of times".
- frabbit 9y ago
  No one is asking for a specific "hard 50% +c". Just more than 50%. "Usually" most emphatically does not mean "often" or "a lot of times." This sort of dumbing down of dialogue and tossing about of opinions is the opposite of what HN should be.
dredmorbius 9y ago
Your question was fair. The phrasing comes across as uncharitable. "Do you have any references for this?" might be less strident.

icegreentea2 9y ago

I think what you're asking for is unreasonable. Labelled racist by who? How do you count 50%? Does it matter if only one fringe group labels it racist? Or does it have to be called racist by a group with political capital > X. It also leaves any potential of discussing "chilling effect" like things. You're measurement does nothing to gauge the overall zeitgeist of the time, which would clearly influence the outlook of any researcher who didn't have balls of steel and bulletproof funding. I agree the author needs more clarity. And the clear thing to say is that "one could easily imagine this type of study in the United States causing problems for the author due to possible accusations of racism".

frabbit 9y ago
I agree with your "labelled racist by who, how do you count, etc" questions. But that just throws the meaninglessness of the original statement into starker relief: it's simply an empty expression of unsupported complaint. Your finishing formulation, is unfortunately simply more prolix. I do not see those sorts of comments as up to the usual standards of HackerNews. Perhaps to be expected on an article like this, but still they should be discouraged.

coldtea 9y ago

>I am not being uncharitable. I am asking whether the poster has analyzed the number of studies in the USA, structured as carefully as this one, and found that they are in fact labelled racist more than 50% of the time. And if so, by whom. What you're asking is not just uncharitable, it doesn't even make sense (even if it was possible). It's also irrelevant to what the parent said, which is not a quantified claim that such studies are "labelled racist more than 50% of the time", but a casual "usually labelled racist". In casual conversation "usually" doesn't mean some hard 50% + c, any more so than "often" and "a lot of times".

frabbit 9y ago
No one is asking for a specific "hard 50% +c". Just more than 50%. "Usually" most emphatically does not mean "often" or "a lot of times." This sort of dumbing down of dialogue and tossing about of opinions is the opposite of what HN should be.

dredmorbius 9y ago

Your question was fair. The phrasing comes across as uncharitable. "Do you have any references for this?" might be less strident.